<html>
<body>
At 09:48 PM 9/29/2004 Wednesday, Dan and Sarah Segal wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>Sara,<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2>The whole idea that European settlers have basically damned
the botanical purity of North America is kind of a bummer at least, and
also grossly hyperbolic in my opinion. Think of all the
breathtaking natural places you have visited, where our flora
thrives.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2>However, I consider myself a purist regarding issues of
native plants, and I also consider the population the most significant
unit, moreso than the species in some ways. In other words, I am no
apologist for those who try to downplay the importance of the issues you
are tackling. <br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2>So, how do I reconcile those two seemingly divergent
sensibilities? <br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2>The definition of a native plant is simply one that has
evolved in situ, here. Yes, someone could go semantically
wild and consider even recent adventive Eurasian weeds as having evolved
in situ, since all species are constantly adapting and evolving--so from
the day they arrive they begin to adapt, and continue to evolve.
One still might be tempted to put a temporal minimum on the extent of
evolution in situ to be counted as native. But evolution doesn't
happen at equal rates for all species, so again the real issue is the
species' own history--where it spent its formative years, so to
speak. But most of all, defining a 'native plant' ecologically,
rather than socially or culturally, is probably more tangible,
scientific, accurate, and useful. <br><br>
The other issue is whether or not it is naive to exclude our own actions
from what we call natural evolution. Aren't we part of that?
Didn't we evolve from something? </font></blockquote><br>
<b><i>A lot of our plant decisions were made on sociological or other
aesthetic basis, and thus may not be amenable to be included as natural
or ecological forces.<br><br>
</i></b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>Some people
will suggest that native Americans moving plants was natural, but that
movement of plants by Europeans was not. I guess the idea is that
moving natives within the continent is ok, but from one continent to
another is not. I might accept that, but I think the assumption
being made with the above goes deeper--that native Americans were holier,
so their movement of plants is more acceptable spiritually, regardless of
geography.</font></blockquote><br>
<b><i>Native Americans moved a lot slower (years or decades is the time
unit) rather than weeks or months for post Columbian arrivals. So
the plants that came with them 10000 to 20000 years ago were probably
better able to nurture along their natural enemies.<br><br>
</i></b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>I do think we
are part of evolution. Our movement of species in the last few
hundred years, like all our other functions, seems to be happening at a
rate that is exponentially faster than before. I think most
people would accept that as a rationale for why more recent movement of
plant species is not acceptable--that it is happening too much too fast,
at rates unprecedented in history. But then again, if we're doing
it, and we're organisms, then you can't say it's happening outside the
bounds of evolution unless you are prepared to say that we are basically
outside the bounds of evolution. </font></blockquote><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2><b><i>Natural
evolution, where decisions are made on the basis of a species'
genetic makeup and it's interaction with climatic and environmental
(ecological) forces. We very commonly take heroic measures to
assure that our favorite plants survive (fertilization, pruning,
protection from animals, etc. Not very natural, a distortion of
natural evolution.<br>
</font> </i></b><br>
<font size=2>Either way, whatever one wants to conclude about people, I
think taking an ecological definition of native plants--that they
evolve(d) here--clarifies things more than taking a sociocultural
approach.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2>Good luck, thanks for putting it out there.<br>
</font> <br>
<font size=2><br>
Dan Segal<br>
Pinelands Nursery & Supply</font></blockquote><br><br>
<b><i>Thanx <br><br>
Bill Stringer<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite> </i></b><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
native-plants mailing list<br>
native-plants@lists.plantconservation.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org" eudora="autourl">http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org</a></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<br>
William C. Stringer<br>
Forage Agronomist &<br>
Native Plant Enthusiast<br>
Clemson University<br><br>
Entomology, Soils and Plant Science<br>
279 P&AS Bldg<br>
PO Box 0315<br>
Clemson, SC 29634<br><br>
864 656 3527 Voice<br>
864 656 3443 FAX</body>
</html>